Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 24.
Instituted on : 11.01.2019.
Decided on : 04.12.2019.
Mahender, aged 43 years, son of Shri Matu Ram, resident of village Kasrainti, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Shree Jee Electronics Shop No.SCF32 HUDA Complex Rohtak, through its Proprietor.
- Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. Building No.1, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, Opp. Modi Mill, New Delhi-110020, through its Manager.
- Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd., B-1/A-4 Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 to 3 in person.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant had purchased one Haier HCF345HTQ Deep Freezer, vide invoice/bill no.HUDA32-B67/16-17 dated 30.4.2016 for a sum of Rs.21,500/- from respondent no.1 with 48 months warranty. It is averred that after few days, some fault occurred in the deep freezer and it stopped cooling. Complainant informed the same to the company on 31.10.2018 vide complaint bearing no.GU201810311044. The engineer of the company checked the deep freezer and told that the compressor is faulty and removed the compressor but after passing of 45 days, the respondents did not replace the compressor. Thereafter, the complainant took the deep freezer to service center, but after replacing the compressor, the same was not working. Thereafter, complainant again made complaint vide complaint bearing no.GU20181216104282 and GU20181218107139 dated 24.11.2018 and complaint bearing no.GU20181225105185 dated 16.12.2018. It is also averred that the complainant has taken a loan, but due to non working of his deep freezer, his sale was decreased and he suffered a huge financial loss and could not pay the loan amount installments on time. Complainant requested the respondents so many times to remove the defects of the deep freezer or replace the same but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to supply a new deep freezer alongwith further guarantee or to return the price of the deep freezer to the complainant i.e. Rs.21,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase to the date of actual realization and to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment as well as Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.2 and 3 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that from the date of purchase of the product, every purchaser has to approach the manufacturer so that the product can be installed and the information regarding Do’s and Don’ts can be furnished to the purchaser. In the present case, the complainant in its own free will and motion opted to not to contact the answering Opposite party. The answering opposite party had offered a free of cost service, which the complainant had not opted and now he is claiming that the product is not functioning properly. It is also submitted that the complainant installed the product in question at his Kiryana store from 3rd party and the answering opposite party is not responsible for any damage or defect. It is also submitted that on 11.3.2018, the complainant made first complaint before the opposite parties. During the visit of service, technician inspected the product in question and observed that the product in question was operated without stabilizer and due to this, compressor of the product in question was damaged. On dated 16.12.2018 and 18.12.2018, the complainant again made his second and third complaints before the answering opposite parties. On receiving the complaints, technician was again deputed to solve the matter but the complainant refused to pay gas refilling charges and the complaint of the complainant got cancelled. It is also submitted that on dated 25.12.2018, the complainant again made a complaint before the answering opposite party. On receiving the complaints, the answering opposite party, in goodwill gesture, wave-off gas refilling charges and replace the compressor of the product in question. After that complainant never registered any complaint with answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.2 & 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. On notice, opposite party no.2 also appeared before the Forum and vide his separately recorded statement dated 6.5.2019 has stated that the reply already filed by opposite party no.2 & 3 be also read on behalf of opposite party no.1.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on 5.11.2019. On the other hand, opposite party no. 2 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2-1/1 and has closed their evidence on 13.09.2019. However, opposite party no.1 made a statement, the evidence already tendered by opposite party no.2 and 3 be also read on behalf of opposite party no.1.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the deep freezer on 30.04.2016 with four year warranty. As per the complainant the fault in the alleged freezer appeared on 31.10.2018 and the compressor was faulty which was replaced by the opposite parties but even replacement of compressor, freezer did not work and the again made complaint on 16.12.2018 with the service centre. But no action was taken by the opposite parties. It is further contended that due to non-functioning of freezer, his sale was decreased and he suffered a huge financial loss and could not pay the loan amount installments on time. On the other hand, contention of opposite parties is that the complainant made first complaint on 11.3.2018 and thereafter on 16.12.2018 and 18.12.2018. On checking, it was found that there was issue in compressor but the complainant refused to pay gas refilling charges. However, the opposite party in goodwill gesture, wave-off gas refilling charges and replace the compressor of the product in question on 25.12.2018. Thereafter no complaint was made by the complainant. It is also submitted that complaint is not consumer as he was using the freezer in question for commercial purpose.
8. Regarding the plea of opposite party that complainant was using the freezer for commercial purpose, the same is denied by the complainant and ld. counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission New Delhi in Vinod Kumar Kucchal Vs. M/s TDi Infrastructure Ltd. Dated 09.02.2014 whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that : “For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of the earning his livelihood by means of self-employment”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the complainant was also using the freezer for his shop for earning his livelihood. It is also observed that the fault of the freezer in question could not be removed by the opposite parties despite repeated requests of the complainant and even replacement of compressor by the opposite parties. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As per the complainant, he had purchased a new freezer and now he does not want replacement and has prayed for refund of price of freezer. As such complainant is entitled for the refund of price of deep freezer in question after deduction of some depreciation as the complainant has used the freezer in question uninterruptedly for approximately two years.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No. 1 to 3 to refund the price of deep-freezer in question i.e. Rs.21500/- after deduction of 50% depreciation i.e.to pay Rs.10750/-(Rupees ten thousand seven hundred and fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.01.2019 till its realisation and shall also to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the deep-freezer in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving the amount.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.12.2019.
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
.
